In our latest poll we gave our readers a number of options as to what they would like to see happen with the 114 acre parcel to our north, known as Arroyo Grande.
69% of respondents said "Leave It As Open Space."
Hopefully, the people will get the opportunity to vote on this and the rest of the State Lands in Nov. A judge will hear the case on the petitions being disallowed by the Sec. of State on Aug 27 and should rule by Aug 28.
In any case, we hope the Oro Valley Council will take note of the overwhelming response NOT to develop Arroyo Grande, and leave the land for the wildlife.
6 comments:
At the risk of repeating myself, and since my previous entry regarding Arroyo Grande devolved into more attacks and counter-attacks among bloggers, let me remind everyone again that leaving Arroyo Grande as open space and annexing the land to the Town are not mutually exclusive choices.
This blog has demonstrated the power that few people can have. Just look at the last Council election. With Arroyo Grande as part of the Town, you'll have more access to decision-makers than if it remains as unincorporated Pima County.
Don't confuse ownership with jurisdiction. Whoever ends up owning the land will determine its eventual use. If it remains in state hands, remember that the state generally has a constitutional obligation to sell its land to the highest bidder. So, the land itself could be annexed into Oro Valley, but the ownership wouldn't change. Likewise, it could be left in unincorporated Pima County, but the ownership wouldn't change.
Just think about where you can have the most impact over the use of the land--at the County level with one Supervisor representing the entire north side, or the Oro Valley Town Council which is easily accessible to everyone.
b-b,
From that which I have read, you are seemingly correct in your 'reminder' that leaving AG as open space and annexation of the land by the town are not mutually exclusive choices; some of the choices seem to be as follows:
That the town buy the land itself by becoming the highest bidder for the property and subsequently becomes sole owner of said
property and as such has the power to rule (within some statute constraints).
That the use of the Arizona Preserve Initiative be utilized in order to have certain Trust Land [nominated and reclassified for conservation purposes]; some areas seem to have already been established as eligible.
Utilize an [establishment of a lower bond for sale or lease applications and changes in the appraisal process].
ALL OF THE ABOVE UNDER CERTAIN TERMS AND CONDITIONS
As I am not an 'expert' or legal authority I am unable to pinpoint the 'how tos and conditions' of it all.
As an aside, bb, you mention attacks and counter-attacks among bloggers. I would like to remind you that you, yourself, when you
introduce an attitude, are as responsible as anyone for the execution and development of this state of mind. If someone says something in a 'questioning' manner, why not just try to post your answer via your knowledge rather than diminish that person by offhanded and subjectively pointed puffery.
Am I correct in the following?
Given the current make-up of our Town council AND the potential for more enlightened council members to replace seats held by Dinosaurs (like Kunish and Hizzoner)...
That it is far better for us that Oro Valley annex and, therefore, "control" the use of this land than it is for the County to do such?
And, help me on this: If Oro Valley annexes the land, can't it zone it as it sees fit? Put it into the master plan as it sees fit?
Yes, Zee Man, if the land is annexed to the Town (but not owned by the Town) it will be zoned in conformance with the voter-approved General Plan. Can that Plan be changed? Yes. Can zoning be changed? Yes.
Again, it all comes down to which governmental entity you want to have control of general planning and zoning for the property, regardless of ownership.
My biggest concern is the use of the term "open space." No one has been able to define it, but in other municipalities, open space ended up being parking lots and streets, (ie. asphalt = open space.) If there is no clear definition of this term, we are doomed.
Would it be so hard to change the wording to read, "natural open space" or something similar that leaves no room for interpretation?
One of the problems I see with using the 'General Plan' argument as a fundamental basis for the Town to annex AG is that in just a few short years I have witnessed so many changes and abuses that a GP almost becomes moot; trickery and treachery seem to have become the norm. The same can be said for a PAD development as it seemingly is utilized additionally as an inducement to allay the fears of those who want to make sense out of this whole thing. I live in a PAD; what a sorry manipulation of zoning and other applications that have reared themselves in this supposedly user friendly community. Developers take control and then they use their iron fists to sate their appetites and their lawyers to intimidate the residents. Control? As it is exercised in our current applications is a crock - P&Z, DRB, BOA, Staff, Council - they have ALL had a hand in this debacle of mismanagement!
VC, the most commonly accepted application of 'open space' is:[land that is unencumbered by private ownership and that is available for ALL to access and utilize for public enjoyment]; exceptions MAY be agricultural properties, golf courses, parks; it does NOT include roads, shoulders, (or land with 4 houses per acre as was stupidly ascribed within the original application). Of course, our governments (you know the ones that are our WE THE PEOPLE protectors) parse the definition of open space in so many ways that
only the ' political legalese dictionary' can really define it and you know how that goes.
The only way I personally would accept AG is if it is documented with no 'ifs, ands, or buts', written in stone, and allows for the application of 'open space' as the term has been most commonly accepted and is real!
Post a Comment